The Competitive Carriers Association warned of problems with the challenge process for broadband maps as the FCC moves forward on a 5G Fund (see 2403260052). CCA members and staff met with the FCC's Broadband Data Task Force staff. CCA noted that some carrier members “have encountered significant difficulties and failures in submitting bulk challenge data, and others believe mobile maps in their areas are inaccurate but have refrained from participating in the mobile challenge process to date to conserve resources pending more clarity regarding what data will be relevant to 5G Fund eligibility,” said a filing posted Thursday in docket 20-32: One carrier “spent hundreds of hours over five-and-a-half months compiling drive test data that covered 11,000 miles in their footprint.” But due to formatting and technical issues with the submission portal, “the carrier was ultimately unable to submit a challenge.” In addition, CCA said other members, “particularly small carriers, have faced or soon will face similar issues, preventing valuable information from contributing to the maps, especially in rural America.” Among the companies represented were Strata Networks, Nex-Tech Wireless, Appalachian Wireless, GCI and Carolina West.
The FCC should forbear from applying Section 214 obligations to broadband internet access service under proposed net neutrality rules, just as it did in the 2015 rules, CTIA told the agency. The FCC need not take that step, as it has suggested (see 2310050063), to safeguard national security, said a filing posted Thursday in docket 23-320. “The national security purposes the Notice identifies are already met by expert national security agencies that possess the expertise and authority to oversee the entire technology sector and security risks within it,” CTIA said: “The Notice specifically points to the Commission’s revocation of Section 214 authority from certain Chinese telecommunications companies to suggest there are gaps to be filled, but as the record shows those companies did not focus on U.S. mass market services such as BIAS.” If the FCC finds it must not forbear from part of the section, so that it can revoke a provider’s international Section 214 entry authorization, “it should forbear from all other Section 214(a)–(d) authority,” CTIA said.
The U.S. table of frequency allocations can differ from the international table because of variations in U.S. rules, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology officials explained during an FCBA lunch Thursday. Attendees heard from Nicholas Oro, deputy chief of the Policy and Rules Division, and Jamie Coleman, chief of the Spectrum Policy Branch. The U.S. doesn’t adopt all the allocations in the international table and may adopt additional allocations, Oro said. Most parts of the table match, he said. Oro noted as one example the supplemental coverage from space (SCS) framework that commissioners approved two weeks ago (see [2403150045). In each of the bands affected, across the 600-700 MHz frequency range, the U.S. table now shows a secondary mobile service allocation, he said. That allocation isn’t included in the international table. “This is kind of the case of the U.S. getting out ahead of the international community,” Oro said. Another example is 6 GHz, where the international table has an allocation for mobile communications but the U.S. table doesn't, he said. Changes to the U.S. table often come through NTIA or as a result of actions during a World Radiocommunication Conference, Oro said. In addition, changes are made as a result of commission orders, he said. All changes require that the FCC seek public comment. NTIA has its own rulebook, the “Manual of Regulations for Federal RF Spectrum Management” or “Redbook,” which applies to federal agencies. Making changes doesn’t require a rulemaking process, Oro said. Coleman said her team at OET is largely responsible for managing the frequency table, ensuring updates are made, checking footnotes and issuing Federal Register updates when needed. “It’s a lot of work,” she said. Her office also works with other parts of the commission “to make sure that we’re properly analyzing … revisions and their impact on other areas of the spectrum.”
The FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it amended rules incorporating four new equipment testing standards, and did so without the proper notice and comment protocol, alleged iFixit, Public Resource and Make Community in the opening brief Wednesday (23-1311) of their petition for review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The opening brief asks that the court remand the rules to the FCC for what the three organizations contend should be a proper rulemaking (see 2311090002).
Advocates of the FCC’s affordable connectivity program and Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program believe funding for both priorities remains available this year, despite Congress having omitted funding in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act FY 2024 minibus spending package enacted last week (see 2403210067). Program backers acknowledge funding will be more difficult as the FY24 package was their best opportunity. They also admit appropriations politics will only prove trickier with Capitol Hill hunkering down for the 2024 election campaign.
Wi-Fi advocates and 6 GHz incumbents clashed on an FCC proposal that would expand parts of the 6 GHz band where new very-low power (VLP) devices can operate without coordination, beyond the initial 850 MHz commissioners approved last year (see 2310190054). The VLP rules took effect March 9. 6 GHz incumbents have lined up in opposition to further changes (see 2403270055).
The FCC Space Bureau shot down SpaceX's request that its second-generation satellites operate in the 2 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz bands and 2020-2025 MHz band. In an order in Wednesday's Daily Digest, the bureau said the 1.6/2.4 GHz "Big" low earth orbit bands and 2 GHz band aren't available for additional mobile satellite system (MSS) operations and that the 2020-2025 MHz request didn't constitute a comprehensive proposal needed to sustain a satellite application. The bureau also dismissed as moot an EchoStar/Dish Network petition seeking dismissal of the modification application. SpaceX was seen facing an uphill battle to get 2 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz spectrum access (see 2402230027). In its order, the bureau said the FCC's "carefully rebalanced" band plan for the 1.6/2/4 GHz bands adopted in 2007 "does not envision an additional [code division multiple access] MSS system, much less a system of 7,500 space stations, operating in this band," as SpaceX proposed. It said opening up the 2 GHz band to additional operators requires first a rulemaking proceeding to determine if additional MSS systems should be authorized for operators in the bands. The bureau also put on public notice SpaceX's petition seeking revision of the agency's licensing and spectrum sharing framework for non-geostationary orbit MSS systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands. Comments are due April 25, replies May 10, in RM-11975, according to the public notice in Daily Digest. It also put on public notice a separate SpaceX petition seeking revision of the 2 GHz MSS sharing plan. Comments there are also due April 25, replies May 10, in RM-11976, according to the PN. At a meeting this week with Space Bureau Chief Julie Kearney, EchoStar argued against SpaceX's 2 GHz petition, according to a filing Wednesday. "The mere action of seeking comment [on the petition] would provide it with undeserved credibility and threaten the certainty that has allowed EchoStar to innovate in this band leading to significant public interest benefits," the company said. EchoStar called it "well established that two widely deployed mobile services cannot share the same frequency band generally and for the 2 GHz band specifically."
An FCC proposal that requires broadcasters and MVPDs to report on blackouts related to retransmission consent negotiations exceeds FCC authority and wouldn’t collect useful information, all four broadcaster network affiliate groups said. Instead, they urged the agency to focus on reopening the record on reclassifying streaming services as MVPDs. The FCC’s attention “should be trained on seeking 'basic information' about the ever-changing, uber-competitive multichannel video programming distribution ecosystem” and virtual MVPDs, said the affiliate groups for Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS in reply comments posted Wednesday in docket 23-427. Adding regulations to traditional MVPDs while leaving competing linear streaming services "entirely free of such regulations” will not help consumers, the groups said. “The instant proceeding underscores that the Commission’s multichannel video distribution rules are becoming increasingly irrational, underinclusive, and out of step with current marketplace realities.”
Intrado representatives met with an aide to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to discuss moving to next-generation 911, said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 21-479. “The most important elements for accelerating NG911 deployment” include the commission adopting a “nationwide NG911 framework that accommodates current and already-planned deployments and creates the conditions to accelerate others” and “increased and faster direct” wireless and VoIP connections through basic session IP to emergency services IP networks, which “would support the delivery of 911 traffic in IP and reduce or eliminate the need for provider protocol translation workarounds,” Intrado said: “The majority of the nation’s current 911 traffic (wireless/VoIP) is ready for the Commission’s regulatory framework for NG911 delivery based on a State 911 Authority’s valid request demonstrating readiness and designation of a point of interconnection.”
Those urging the FCC to update its approach to net neutrality rules to address issues concerning emerging services like network slicing spoke with aides to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, as they make the rounds at the agency (see 2403250018). “Clarify when providing a different type of service to applications evades the Open Internet protections,” said a filing posted Wednesday in docket 23-320. The advocates said the rules should apply unless “the particular type of application requires a specific level of quality of service, which is objectively necessary for the specific type of application,” which “cannot be met over a well-provisioned broadband Internet access service in compliance with the Open Internet protections.”